The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-04-17
Tux MONEBFOUS ISSUE
10 CONE UP TOMORROW IN THE
COUNTY COURT.
Prospects for q Full Attendance
and the OFT Repeated Re-
sult-CorrectlOBs.


will be brought up In the County
Court again tomorrow and In chances
are decidedly In favor OF an over
whelning crush for the scheme. The
measure appropriating thousands Of
dollars for the purpose was passed at
the closing session last week and at
once aroused public indignation. The
oppo ition sprapg not from a misery
and impecunious spirit, but from a
sense OF the eternal fitness OF things.
The narrow confines to be benefited,
the close proximity OF avenues for Ct
cape and the enormous amount neces.
sary TO place the levee in suitable
shape, all add intensity TO the wide-
spread opposition. II is natural
enough for those whose interests
are involved to advocate the
expenditure OF the peoples money.
and with nothing bat the most honest
convictions. This is doubtless the
case in this instance, and there is no
intention whatever to impugn the
motives OF any member Of the County
Court and the 500 alleged signers OF
the petition asking for the passage OF
the measure. But when 1t is consid-
cred that the same scheme has failed
to develop sufficient degree Of merit
to pass muster at any meeting sincs
frat advocated three years ago, is
strong evidence that something is
lacking.
The Same conditions exist now that
have prevailed throughout he past
year. Population in the territory
most interested has increased little,
the same broad thorouRhfares are still
open to travel, county fnanGes are in
about the same state, and 1t is there
fore reasonable to suppose that the
same arguments can be advanced
against the scheme. 1t Ia safe to
say full favorable vote was cast when
1t went through last week, and this
was only something over one-third of
the strength of the court. Some OF the
magistrates refused to vote, for reasons
easily imagined but net actually
known, while others, not anticipating
question OF euch grave moment,
absented themselves from the session
on outside business. The conditions
will be changed tomorrow, however,
and full attendance and vote may be
expected. Should this bs reaIiE ID, the
Wolf river levee is doomed.
Justice Wellborn yesterday handed in
the following correction of what is al
legged to have been an erroneous state
ment by Mr., Bond, published yesterday
morning:
MEMPHIS, Tenn, April 16. 1857.
To tho Editors Of the Appeal:
In your article from Mr.. Bond this
morning, charging Justices O. ].
Hughes, Stewart and Wel born with
the ! paternity Of digging a ditch at the
instance of q. B. English, for English's
benefi, near Brunswick, l desire
simply 10 say Hughes was not at that
time member OF the cou {. Justices
Jones aud Cox had the measure passed
and executed. Hughes had nothing
to do with 1t. In reference to the
smaller ditch, where he ia charged
with expanding 800 of county money
when he could have got an appropria-
ton from the citiz Ems for large part
oil the came, the facts are simply
these: IL wal near Brunswick where
two roads crossed at right arg es, two
ends centering their water into the
third, which led the came 10 ruinous
quantity over the lots of number of
cltizsns. BY an appropriation of
800 1t could be made harm
less. 1t was public highway,
could not be done by private means
without strife among palties through
whose grounds ditch would pass,
therefore the necessity OF county in
tervention.
II the County Court Ia as blsmeless
in all else ss Justice Hughes in ditch
ing we tre ttill all right.
l have nothing to say In r ference to
the real conference.-the location of a
new bridge on Hstchie.
You say, though, that was passed by
Hughes. 1t was not, but is now left
by the court to the 4 ad Commission
ers of the First and Eighth Districts.
Respectfully, A. O wELLB )RE.
BY reference to the publication
complained Of, Mr.. Wellborn will
find himself in error about the new
bridge over Hstchie rivsr. 1t was
not stated the bridge had been or
dered, but merely that it was pro-
posed to open up new road which
would require one. Tho Justice doas
not attempt TO jnstify the expenditure
Of nearly $500 at The Hatchie crossing
OF the Memphis and Somerville road
In fact, he emphatically states 1t
should never have been done. HE
only desire In writing the communi.
cation was TO exonerate Mr. Hughes,
and II Mr.. Bond was mistaken in lay
ing the blams at his door 1t can easily
be sscertsined.
Mr.. J. NJ. McOallum, a thoroughly
honest, conscientious and usually
we'll informed gentleman, states that
he Is in favor OF the Hindmsn
ferry. He believes it a necessity, and
knows that 1t will be q great benefit
to two.thirds OF the people OF TIE Sixth
District. This comes as acorrection to a
misunderstanding of his views, which
app saIed yesterday morning. 1t is
only natural for Mr.. MCCallum to IA
vor the project, as he Is doubtless in
a position to derive more benefit than
anyone else from it. This, Of course,
has a tendency to make his convic-
tons in the premises thoroughly sim
cere, and no one will for a moment
doubt his honesty Of purpose The
main questions which should enter
into the matter are, Is, the levee a pub
| lie necessity, and can the county safe
| ly enter upon its construction at the
present timer The correct answer to
1 L i = a IL + a IL